DHCR Didn't Deny Tenant's Constitutional Rights

Tenant brought a civil rights action against the DHCR, claiming that the agency violated his constitutional rights in processing and approving landlord's MCI rent increase application. Tenant argued that the DHCR violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, and First Amendment by denying his procedural right to object to landlord's application and improperly approving the MCI rent hike. The court dismissed the case. The federal court had no authority to rule on cases brought against state governments or their agencies such as the DHCR unless they had waived their Eleventh Amendment immunity. So the court couldn't rule on a claim against the DHCR. In addition, the DHCR gave tenant sufficient time to file objections to the MCI application, which tenant failed to do, so there was no due process violation. Tenant wasn't a member of any protected class who could make an equal protection claim and wasn't intentionally treated differently than other tenants by the DHCR's processing. And the fact that the DHCR didn't respond to tenant's request for an extension wasn't a denial of tenant's free speech. The right to free speech didn't obligate the government to listen or respond.

Helgason v. Doe: 10 Civ 5116, 2011 WL 4089943 (SDNY; 9/13/11; Crotty, J)